11/05/2016 Wednesday in Parliament

its close. Join me live for the ceremony of prorogation.

Hello and welcome to Wednesday in Parliament.

Questions on corruption at the last PMQS of this session of parliament.

The Culture Secretary is called to the Commons ahead

of the publication of his plans for the BBC.

And peers are told - in no uncertain terms -

it's time to give up their opposition to the Housing Bill.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop.

But first, to a rumbustious Prime Minister's Questions -

the last before the end of this session of parliament.

It started politely enough, with tributes to the veteran

wildlife broadcaster, Sir David Attenborough.

Since we often celebrate great national events in this house, with

the Prime Minister wish Sir David Attenborough are very happy 90th

birthday and thank him for the way he has presented nature programmes

on television and awakened the ideas of so many people to the fragility

of our ecosystem and educated a whole generation. I certainly join

the right honourable gentleman in wishing Sir David Attenborough are

happy birthday. Many of us feel we grew up with him as our teacher on

the environment and natural world. I am proud to say the Royal Arctic

ship will be named after David Attenborough. There was strong

support for Boaty McBoatface. I think the submarine on the boat will

be named Boaty McBoatface. But with the niceties over MPs

turned to the subject of corruption. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister

was caught on camera telling the Queen that Nigeria

and Afghanistan were 'possibly the two most corrupt countries

in the world.' Both states are due to attend

an anti-corruption summit in London. David Cameron's comments

were raised right at the start of Prime Minister's

Questions by a Labour MP. Even fantastically corrupt Nigeria

is asking Britain to clean up its act and introduce beneficial

ownership registers in overseas territories. Will the Prime Minister

achieve this tomorrow at the anti-corruption Summit? First of all

I better check the microphone is on before speaking, that is probably a

good idea. I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The

answer to his question is yes. We have asked three things of the

overseas territories and Crown dependencies, automatic exchange of

tax information, common reporting standard for national companies and

central beneficial ownership registries so we know what companies

are based there. They have delivered on the first two and they will be

following an delivery on the third. That is what he asked for that is

exactly what he's getting. It was a subject picked up

by the Labour leader, What he will do about the UK

administers tax havens who receive large amounts of money from dodgy

sources which should and must be closed down, as should any tax

evasion in the City of London. We need a British government that is

prepared to chase down this level of corruption. This government has done

more than any previous government to deal with this issue of making sure

that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not tax

havens but behave in a responsible way.

The SNP leader at Westminster raised the recent

elections, before turning to the corruption issue.

The Prime Minister's government was elected with 37 cents of the vote,

so I am sure he would acknowledge the success of Nicola Sturgeon and

the SNP in being returned victoriously for a third time with

46% of the vote, the highest of any political party in national

elections anywhere currently in Western Europe. Mr Speaker, on the

anti-corruption Summit, has the Prime Minister read the appeals from

Nigerian campaigners who say our efforts are sadly undermined if

countries such as your own are welcoming our corrupt to hide their

ill gotten gains in your luxury homes, department stores, car

dealerships, private schools and anywhere else that will accept their

cash with no questions asked. The role of London's property market as

vessels to conceal stolen wealth has been exposed in court documents,

reports, documentaries and more. What is the Prime Minister going to

do about this? First of all I am delighted to congratulate Nicola

Sturgeon on her victory in the Scottish elections, as I'm sure he

would want to congratulate Ruth Davidson. CHEERING

We have something in common, because of course the SNP have gone from

majority to minority while but conservatives have gone from

coalition to majority. Next week he can get up and asked me how we

getting an ordering some new panda bears for Edinburgh zoo. But the

question he asks about the corruption Summit is absolutely

right. The whole point of holding the summit in London is to say the

action is required by developed as well as developing countries. One of

the steps we are taking to make sure foreign companies that own UK

property have to declare who the beneficial owner is will be one of

the ways we make sure that plundered money from African countries can't

be hidden in London. The Liberal Democrat leader also

raised last week's elections. Mr Tim Farron. Order! Order.

LAUGHTER However irritating the honourable

gentleman... CHEERING LAUGHTER

May be to government backbenchers, he has a right to be heard, and he

will be heard. Mr Tim Farron. I am fantastically grateful to you, Mr

Speaker. LAUGHTER I heard the Prime Minister on two

occasions this afternoon congratulate the numeric London,

Sadiq Khan, and I would like to repeat that myself. He did not

however apologise for his disgraceful and racist campaign the

Conservative Party decided to run in that campaign. Will he take the

opportunity to apologise for dividing communities in order to win

cheap votes? It is a great way to end the session, getting lessons on

clean campaigning from the Liberal Democrats. David Cameron.

The Chancellor George Osborne has been challenged over the accuracy

of claims made by Remain campaigners about the negative consequences

The Treasury Committee homed in on a warning that British

households would be ?4,300 worse off if the UK

The Chancellor stuck by his figures, insisting that Britain would be

poorer and less secure outside the EU.

We've had in the last few days and weeks tens of thousands of jobs that

will go in the city. Every household were soft, we will come back to that

one surely I expect. Interest rates going up, house prices are going to

slump. We've been told there will be an increase in terror threat to this

UK and it has all culminated in heavy breathing by the newspapers.

-- every briefing that led to the headline, a Brexit could lead to

war. This does seem a bit overdone. I'm just wondering whether you are

strengthening weakening your argument on its own terms by going

in for this stuff? I actually completely reject what you just

said, because the claims on the impact on the economy has been

supported by the Bank of England, the OECD, the IMF and every major

credible institution in the wild. The claims on security that have

been made were supported a couple of days ago by the two people who ran

MI6 and MI5 and kept this country safe for many years. The arguments

about the border stability of Europe once every other country in Europe

would echo. So I would say what we have done, on the side of those

arguing to remain in the European Union, is set out credible

opposition is about the very serious consequences for this country, our

economy, our security and our place in the world were we to leave.

The Chancellor was asked to explain predictions that

households would be worse off outside the EU.

?4300, this figure by which households are going to be worse

off, that is a central point about which a lot of noise was made. You

pre-briefed it, which was regrettable, and a number of

newspapers led with it as some hard fact, when in fact you have

explained today that this is a product of modelling, that modelling

is inherently a science,, and you are publishing a range which

reflects the lack of indecision and not setting great stalked by this

single figure, are you, Chancellor? I think the figure is what I

described at the time, the central figure in a range. It enables people

to understand the scale of the loss they would face as a family, and

that the country would face. It is echoed by similar ranges provided by

the OECD and London School of economic. As far as I can see,

nobody has credibly undermined the range we provided.

Jacob Rees-Mogg started by thanking the Chancellor

The man from vote leave was difficult to get in, I am grateful

you showed better response to Parliament on my own friends do.

LAUGHTER Bowled the is my right honourable

friend. These are strange days. -- he is my right honourable friend.

The moment the leaves campaign... The leave campaign has immediately

started to assert that public expenditure would be higher if we

left, that we would impose new tariff barriers to protect certain

industries in the UK... This low tax. This is your report with your

name on it. Your assumption. The whole we're going to be this superb,

low tax, low spending, low tariff economy if we leave the EU has been

somewhat exposed by the nature of the campaign that is being waged at

the moment. I'm about to finish. It leaves the suspicion that the report

has taken absolutely the best for remaining and the worse for leaving.

Chancellor, if I may, a speech made on the 17th of May 2010, you set out

the Office for Budget Responsibility. You said I am the

first chance to remove the temptation to fiddle the figures by

giving up control of the economic and fiscal forecasts. Have you taken

back control so you can fiddle the figures? No, not at all. We are

presenting scenarios here. But you can go and get independent figures.

You're watching Wednesday in Parliament with me, Alicia McCarthy.

The last tussle between the Lords and the Commons ended

when peers finally backed down on the housing bill.

At the start of the day David Cameron told peers

to stop blocking the plans, insisting they were holding up

the delivery a Government manifesto commitment.

Ministers have pledged to build 200,000 starter homes,

to be sold at a discount to younger first-time buyers -

and to allow the sale of some high value council housing to fund plans

giving housing association tenants the right to buy their homes.

In the Commons the housing minister told peers it was time to back down.

This is the third time we have had to vote to confirm a key

manifesto commitment, so I do not intend to detain

I know that I do not have to remind the House of what we said

in our manifesto, as I outlined those commitments last week

The Lords have scrutinised the Bill more than adequately,

and I thank them for their efforts, but this is no longer scrutiny: this

Enough is enough; it is time to stop.

Lord Kerslake's amendment has two levels of problems.

It would impact on our ability to work with local authorities

to deliver the best, most cost-effective,

deals for replacement housing, and that could reduce the funding

for our manifesto commitment to deliver right-to-buy discounts

We received a clear mandate for that at the general election.

The Labour frontbencher said the Government's refusal to accept

Lord Kerslake's clause would "sound the death knell" for social housing.

The Government were forced to make a string of concessions in the House

of Lords and were defeated multiple times, showing the extent

It does nothing to fix the causes of the past six years of failure,

sounds the death knell for social housing and will be a big let-down

for people who are desperate for a home.

Council housing acid should not be used to fund the right to buy for

tenants. We should not be adopting this top-down policy of forcing the

sale of council assets. The legislation was sent to appears

again and the Lordships finally back down but not before the labour front

bench to the highly unusual attempt of condemning attacks on the cross

be here -- peer behind much of the opposition to the bill.

Mr Lewis says of this distinguished and highly respected public servant:

"Not only is Lord Kerslake unelected, he is the owner

of his own home who is trying to stop others from owning theirs".

Quite apart from the offensive language unworthy of a Minister

of the Crown, this disgraceful attack entirely overlooks the role

of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, in supporting the voluntary

agreement between the housing association movement,

of which he is a leading member, and the Government in extending

He is owed a prompt and full apology.

Lord Kerslake himself accepted it was time to back down.

In the end, any contest between this House and the other place

That is as it should be: it is elected and we are not.

However, that should not dissuade us from making our case

clearly and forcefully on issues that really matter.

In this case the matters involved matter a great deal.

The underlying concerns about this Bill have been about its fairness,

its commitment to localism and its deliverability.

Most of all it has been about whether it will deliver

the additional houses of all types and tenures that this country

And he argued he'd had to balance political conventions

with what he knew about the lives of real people.

I give just one example of a family with five children living

in a two-bedroom flat less than half an hour from this House.

The five children share a single bedroom.

Will their chances of securing a decent family home be enhanced

or diminished by the passage of this Bill?

I fear we know the answer to that question.

In my view, it is the interests of this family and the many others

like them that should come first in our deliberations in this House.

And with that the Lords backed down on their last legislative

disagreement with the Commons - clearing the way for this session

The Government will publish its White Paper on the future

the shadow Culture Secretary called John Whittingdale to the Commons

to answer an urgent question on the corporation -

and accused the Government of seeking to destroy it.

The recent consultation on the BBC charter -

response to a Government consultation ever - shows that three

quarters of the public want the BBC to remain independent.

The BBC does a brilliant job in informing, educating

and entertaining us all, and four fifths of the public believe that it

Today we read in the newspapers that the Secretary of State intends

He is wrong to do so, and we will oppose any such revision.

He is seeking to turn the BBC away from a mission that has succeeded

brilliantly for 90 years and of which the public approve.

He did not like the results of the public consultation,

so he is simply ignoring them, but the public love the BBC and want

it to carry on doing what it has been doing so well for more

May I finish by giving the Secretary of State a bit of advice?

It is not too late for the Secretary of State to start

He will not be forgiven, and nor will his party,

if he continues on the path, which he has been briefing

to the newspapers, that will lead to the destruction of the BBC

as our much loved national broadcaster and turn it instead

into a mouthpiece of the Government of the day.

We have had an extensive consultation and have

I would simply say to her that they are legitimate questions

for tomorrow when she has had the chance to read the White Paper

rather than for now, when she has read comments

in the newspapers that range from complete fantasy to others that

are quite well informed but certainly not informed by me

We occasionally criticise the BBC for repeats and insist on original

content wherever possible, but I suspect we will have an awful

lot of repeats tomorrow from the Honourable

Lady, because that is when she should ask the questions

and when I shall be happy to provide her with answers.

Members on both sides of the House wait with some trepidation

for the publication tomorrow of the White Paper on the future

of the BBC, but the Government should be in no doubt

about the support for editorially independent public service

broadcasting throughout the United Kingdom.

There often seems to be something of a gulf between some

of the whackier notions floated by the Government via the press

One of the most bizarre must surely be the idea that the BBC should

desist from broadcasting popular programmes at the same time that ITV

broadcasts popular programmes, presumably,

the BBC should show only dull, unpopular programmes at those times.

There are reports that that remains a sticking point

between the Government and the director-general.

Will the Secretary of State reassure us that there is no truth

Following the lefty-lovey hysteria at the weekend,

Friend agree that scrapping the discredited BBC Trust,

asking for more transparency in a publicly funded organisation

and wanting the BBC to be distinctive and impartial is hardly

the end of public service broadcasting as we know it?

Friend, and I think he will find that our proposals certainly do not

represent the end of public service broadcasting.

Indeed, I hope it will be felt that they strengthen public

If constructed, the nuclear power station

in Somerset would be the first new nuclear plant

in Britain for 20 years, and, at ?24 billion,

The project's been on the cards for more than seven years.

But in the last 12 months serious doubts have emerged over

whether the French energy firm EDF is willing to take the financial

There'll be finance from China as well.

In the Lords, a numbers of peers had misgivings over whether the whole

My Lords, there is no economic case for Hinkley Point and there is no

The numbers do not work; neither does the EP reactor.

We need nuclear plants but we do not need this nuclear plant.

In the light of this, for the sake of the UK taxpayer

and the UK energy consumer, is it not time that we pulled

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend but I do

We need Hinkley C and there is a very strong economic case,

as I have indicated, in terms of jobs and the power

I agree that we also need other nuclear plants.

We are of course developing those as well to help us transition away

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, with all due

respect, we do not need his noble friend to put the boot

The French Cabinet and the board of EDF are quite capable of doing

Is my noble friend aware that the Chinese also have a plan B,

which is to bypass EDF altogether and to build two smaller reactors

on the Hinkley C site, and to do it rather quicker

My Lords, are there not fears about the safety

Is it not a very expensive project and could nuclear provision not be

better arrived at by building smaller nuclear power stations

My Lords, standards of nuclear safety are second to none

The noble Lord is of course right about small modular reactors,

and we are progressing with that, as my right honourable

friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget.

We have had 38 expressions of interest...

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is well aware that the global solar

industry is doubling every two years.

In spite of this Government's withdrawal of subsidies,

there will be sufficient global capacity in 12 years to cover

Does that not make Hinkley Point obsolete?

We will probably not even have it built in 12 years' time.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right on the growth of renewables

and absolutely right to highlight the importance of that,

as I have been doing repeatedly, without subsidy.

But she is wrong to say that we do not need a back-up,

That is where nuclear is so important and why

The arguments used by those campaigning for the UK to the within

the EU have an echo of those used in the No campaign in the Scottish

referendum, according to the SNP. The subject came up on a regular

round of Scotland questions. That is it for now but join me tomorrow for

the very last day of this session of Parliament. For now, goodbye.